But for three reasons, I don’t think the prospects for this reform are dead at all. I dealt with the first two in a U-T San Diego column today.

The first: My apologies to Jon Coupal and company, but I really think they were too clever by half with their measure last year:

” … the last time reformers brought paycheck protection before California voters — via Proposition 32 on the November 2012 ballot — they didn’t trust voters enough to just give them a straightforward up-or-down vote on whether union members should have a say on the use of their dues. Instead, the initiative included legally dubious provisions restricting corporate campaign spending that gave critics ample ammunition to depict it as a deceptive power play.

“The measure lost in a landslide. But state voters came fairly close to passing cleaner, simpler versions of paycheck protection in 1998 and 2005.”

The second: There has never been a more egregious case of union power trumping public sentiment than in this year’s Legislature:

“The appalling story of former Los Angeles Unified elementary schoolteacher Mark Berndt would make a simple version of paycheck protection much easier to pass in 2014 or 2016. After evidence turned up indicating Berndt had been feeding sperm to his students, district officials had no choice but to pay Berndt $35,000 to get him to quit because of job protections demanded and won by United Teachers Los Angeles.

“When the Berndt case triggered a public backlash, the state Legislature earlier this year passed a teacher-discipline measure that was billed as a smart way to keep perverts away from students. Instead, it actually gave teachers even more job protections.

“Nothing better illustrates the unions’ chokehold on Sacramento than this. If the CTA and the CFT had less money for political fights, maybe, just maybe, the public would have gotten its way — and parents wouldn’t have cause to think that state lawmakers worry more about protecting predatory teachers than the students of such teachers.”

The third reason is that quite a few veteran state journalists no longer have illusions about how unions have turned governance, especially at the local level, into something akin to looting. It’s no longer just Dan Walters and his occasional contrarian refusal to accept the surface motives claimed by Jerry Brown, Darrell Steinberg and John Perez. Instead, it’s the Bay Area News Group’s increasingly radicalized columnist and editorial writer Daniel Borenstein and a wave of younger reporters at the San Jose Mercury-News, the Sacramento Bee and many online sites.

Even L.A. Times knows which way the wind blows

And even though their concern is always muted, there’s plenty of evidence that the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times is worried, too.

Consider this editorial from last week, headlined “Spend money on the students it’s meant to help.” It makes the same basic point as my CalWatchdog story from three weeks ago about Gov. Jerry Brown’s bid to direct more funds to struggling students being hijacked to put more money in operating budgets for teacher compensation:

“Under the draft rules, if administrators spent all the extra funding on teacher raises, middle-class students would be receiving more of the benefit than needy ones. If those students’ scores rose even slightly, the district could claim it had fulfilled the requirements of the third option.”

If anything puts the spotlight on the gap between union Democrats and real, honest-to-God social-justice Democrats, it is this.

If unions follow up on their Mark Berndt scandal power play by hijacking what’s billed as the most socially progressive education reform in California history, I think opposition to a clean “paycheck protection” bill fades in the newsrooms around the Golden State.

If it doesn’t, God help California. There will be nothing unions can’t get away with.

—  Roger Berkowitz, Executive Director, Hannah Arendt Center

The above quote explains quite well the intrinsic conflict of interest that accrues to public-sector unions. This conflict of interest is the primary distinction between public-sector unions and private-sector unions. It is the reason that private-sector unions can muster strong arguments for their continued relevance in society, whereas the very legitimacy of public-sector unions is questionable.

And lest anyone suggest that calls for reform — if not the abolition — of public-sector unions emanates solely from the “extreme right wing,” consider the provenance of the above quote. The highly regarded, intellectually elite Hannah Arendt Center boasts perhaps the most impeccable nonpartisan, anti-ideological credentials of any comparable institution in the world. It is named after famous political philosopher Hannah Arendt, the author of numerous books, the most famous being “The Origins of Totalitarianism.”

The reason Democrats don’t support public-sector union reform is obvious. There is no special interest in America that donates more money to the Democratic Party than public-sector unions. The data in the table below make this clear. If you go to the source of this data, OpenSecrets.org, you will see that the vast majority of the $535 million contributed to Democrats between 2000 and 2010 came from public-sector unions, whose membership in absolute numbers now exceeds that of private-sector unions.

In California, where public-sector union spending on state and local campaigns and lobbying exceeds $500 million per two-year cycle, the same percentages apply.

Conflicts of interest

Democrats are reluctant to recognize the conflict of interest because the Democratic Party is financially dependent on public-sector unions. It is significant that, on the above table, which covers federal elections and lobbying efforts, corporate contributions are nearly balanced between Democrats and Republicans. If union spending provided a counterweight to corporate spending, as the unions claim, then one could make a case against reform.

But “union spending” is predominantly “public-sector union spending,” and their primary agenda has nothing to do with protecting the rights of private-sector workers. Their agenda has to do with exempting public-sector workers from the economic challenges facing ordinary American workers who have to compete — along with corporations — in the global economy. And corporations, facing a monolithic, self-interested, unionized government, play ball.

Breaking the power of public-sector unions, if not eliminating them altogether, is a prerequisite, ironically, to reforming the financial sector and restoring a competitive corporate environment. It is also a prerequisite to reforming taxpayer-funded, government-administered benefits and entitlements so that all American workers earn them according to the same set of formulas and incentives — regardless of whether or not they work for the government or in the private sector.

Most of the public-sector union reform strategies that have been attempted — successfully or not — have been oriented toward facilitating “opt-out” behavior for government workers. Right-to-work laws allow employees of unionized government agencies to refuse to pay union dues. Most states, even California, permit employees of unionized government agencies to opt-out of paying the political portion of their dues. But these reforms do nothing to stop the overwhelming portion of government union money flowing to Democrats, a partisan strategy on the part of public-sector union leadership that is entirely unrepresentative of their membership.

Party identification

Taking this concept to its logical extreme makes the point clear:  Using very rough numbers, the party identification among America’s government workers nearly mirrors that of the private-sector workers, splitting about one-third each among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, according to a Gallup poll in 2011.

A successful paycheck protection law would, arguably, result in government political contributions diminishing by one-third — possibly more, depending on the sentiments of independents. That is, instead of diverting, for example, $100 million dollars from the taxpayer-funded government payroll into the coffers of the Democratic party, only $66 million would go there. The Republicans would still get nothing, and the essence of a forcibly politicized government workforce would remain intact.

Other than abolition, speculating over what alternative public-sector union reform strategy might be more effective than “paycheck protection” is dangerous. Paycheck protection laws are similar to Proposition 32 on California’s November 2012 ballot. In the ballot language, it would have prohibited “unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes.” Voters turned it down, 57-43.

But it might be possible to force, through litigation, the allocation of government union political contributions to parties according to the party registration of the union memberships. Once per year, unionized government workers would fill out a form where they would disclose, anonymously, their party registration. A 3rd party agency, perhaps a major public accounting firm, would collect these ballots, collect the political contributions, and allocate the money to the respective parties based on the voting of the members.

*   *   *

Ed Ring is the executive director of the California Public Policy Center.

June 12, 2013

By Ed Ring

California’s November 2012 statewide ballot included Proposition 32, the “Stop Special Interest Money Now” initiative. Among the provisions included in this campaign finance reform measure was the requirement that public sector unions obtain permission from each member prior to using a portion of their dues to support political campaigns.

It’s hard to precisely determine just how much public sector unions spent to immolate Prop. 32, since their campaign material often combined “Yes on 30″ (new taxes), with “No on 32,” meaning resources were being directed at both initiative campaigns. Also, hard dollar campaign spending was only part of the effort; an army of union operatives was activated to defeat Prop. 32 — from public school teachers influencing students and parents to precinct walkers to labor friendly slate mailings. Overall, the unions probably spent about $100 million to defeat Prop. 32.

And their message was consistent: Prop. 32 targets “working families,” it attempts to “silence our voices,” it is “deceptive,” it provides “special exemptions” to the real special interests, “corporations and billionaires.”

In these less passionate times seven months after the election, let us review the veracity of these claims one at a time, because they will continue to be critical to future politics in California:

(1)  The average unionized government worker in California earns total compensation that averages well over $100,000 per year, about twice what the average private sector taxpayer earns per year. These are not typical “working families.”

(2) Prop. 32 merely attempted to require public sector unions to do what every other political participant must do: use money that donors contribute voluntarily. Yet the public sector unions alleged that merely requiring political contributions to be made on an opt-in basis would “silence our voices.”

(3) Prop. 32′s opponents tagged it the “special exemptions act,” because they felt it was unbalanced — they claimed it targeted public sector unions but didn’t include sufficient campaign finance restrictions on billionaires and corporations. Notwithstanding the fact that Prop. 32 did pretty much everything constitutionally allowable to restrict the campaign spending of all special interests, there is a rank hypocrisy in this statement that deserves further exploration. Because public sector unions are an integral part of America’s special interest elite.

Characteristics of the Special Interest Elite:

(1)  Their political agenda differs from — and is often in conflict with — the public interest.

(2)  Their top priorities are not informed by ideology, but rather by whatever means achieves their ends.

(3)  They will work to influence whatever political party and politicians are amenable to their agenda.

(4)  They hold inordinate influence over elections and policymaking.

(5)  They have an identity of interest with other elite special interests.

If you review these five characteristics, it is certainly arguable that public sector unions belong among the special interest elite. One can suggest that public sector unions are overwhelmingly democratic, and informed by leftist ideology (item 2), but to do so is confusing cause for effect. The priority of government worker unions is money and power, and the ideology of the left supports these ends.

What is often still overlooked by critics of public sector unions, and dismissed by their supporters, is item (5): There is an identity of interests between public sector unions and other elite special interests. In fact, public sector unions are the critical, primary broker among elite special interests. Without them, the power and influence of America’s overbuilt financial sector and anti-competitive corporations would be diminished, not enhanced. This is counter-intuitive, but is an utterly crucial point that reformers need to impress upon idealistic, left-leaning voters.

Why Public Sector Unions Are the Most Elite of All Special Interests:

(1)  All other powerful special interests have narrowly focused agendas that pertain to their specific industries. This means their participation in politics is generally sporadic; they emerge when there is a threat or opportunity affecting their business, then they withdraw. Often their agendas are in conflict with each other, which tends to attenuate if not cancel out their power.

(2)  Public sector unions have one broad agenda — more pay and benefits for public sector workers, and more public sector workers. This agenda supersedes whatever other redeeming programs and rhetoric they may adopt. Ultimately, this agenda is corrupting, because it is utterly apolitical and intrinsically disconnected from any qualitative analysis of what programs and policies are in the public interest.

(3)  Unlike all other special interests, public sector unions are inside the government. As term-limited elected officials come and go, the ranking employees of public sector unions know that the union leadership delivers the true continuity. And if other special interests want favorable legislation, or special treatment by the bureaucracy, they know where to go first — not to the politicians, but to the unions.

(4)  There is no source of money pouring into politics at nearly the scale and consistency of public sector union dues — in California these dues total well over $1 billion per year. Public sector unions deploy these massive sums in order to be actively involved in every political contest, no matter how big or small.

This reality, that public sector unions operate at the heart of the corporate and financial elite, that they are the brokers and enablers of corporate and financial power, is the tragic irony that is lost on California’s electorate. Public sector unions are the foot soldiers of corporatism, because without their blessing and support, crony capitalists would not successfully lobby for anti-competitive laws, pension bankers would not have a taxpayer-guaranteed virtually unlimited source of funds to invest, and bond underwriters would not be collecting commissions on hundreds of billions in bond issues necessitated by spending deficits. Public sector unions are also the facilitators of authoritarianism, because every new law and every new intrusion on civil liberties is accompanied by a need for more unionized government workers.

The bargain public sector unions have made with the relentlessly consolidating corporate and financial elite is completely at odds with their supposedly egalitarian ideology. Using their virtually unrestricted, awesomely potent ability to control our politicians, they have carved out for themselves the biggest special exemption of all — they have negotiated an immunity to the economic challenges facing every private sector taxpayer who must compete in the global economy.

Put that into a 30-second television commercial.

Ed Ring is the executive director of the California Public Policy Center and the editor of UnionWatch.org.

By John Seiler

Despite assurances to the contrary from Gov. Jerry Brown and others, his Proposition 30 tax increase will drive thousands more businesses from this state. He and President Obama insist that such people must “pay their fair share.” They reply: We already pay too much!

The Orange County Register’s Jan Norman today profiled one such person:

“Melton International Tackle, which sells fishing gear worldwide, is marking 20 years in business in Anaheim during 2013. It may be the last.

“Owner Tracy Melton is consulting with his financial experts and exploring other locations for his 30-employee company. He says recent state tax hikes may be the final straw that drives him out of what he considers to be a state unfriendly to businesses.”

Brown and Obama portray business owners like Melton as filthy rich folks, lounging around on yachts while they punish the poor. The opposite is true.

“‘I am not rich by any means,’ Melton said ‘I work hard, keep 30 people off unemployment, and my reward is that the state and feds want to take more than half of any profit I make’….

“In November, California voters approved Proposition 30, which increases the sales tax a fourth of a percentage point (now 8 percent in most of Orange County), and hikes the state income tax for individuals earning more than $250,000 a year. That income tax increase hits many entrepreneurs, including Melton, because they structure their companies to pass their revenues through to the owners who pay individual income tax.”

54 percent

The tax increase on “the rich” means that entrepreneurs like Melton will have less money to hire people, or even to keep those they do hire. The money will be stolen from the productive private sector and forked over to the counter-productive, parasitic government sector.

“Melton said his tax rates will total almost 54 percent — 39.6 percent for federal income tax (recently increased), 10.3 percent for state income tax and 3.8 percent Medicare surcharge for adjusted income over $200,000 for individuals, $250,000 for couples.”

And for what? The worst federal and state governments ever heard of. California’s recent $6 billion tax hike from Prop. 13 was advertised as going entirely to schools K-12. But Brown’s new budget proposal sends just $2.7 billion to $K-12 schools. And a lot of the tax-increase dough actually will go toward pensions. In any case, California’s horrid schools score among the worst of the 50 states.

“‘I don’t mind paying my fair share, but I don’t think it’s fair that I have to work until the 4th of July to pay my state and federal taxes,'” Melton said.

“He is referring to a ‘Tax Freedom Day’ calculation that the Tax Foundation, a Washington DC advocacy group, came up with when considering how many days Americans would have to work just to pay all their taxes. Residents in high-tax states such as California and high-income individuals would have to work longer.”

It’s ironic that Melton’s “tax freedom” day is on July 4, when we celebrate our independence from British tax tyranny. And King George III only wanted to put some small taxes on tea and paper.

Our modern tax tyrants are far worse. The best way to avoid them is to leave. It’s easy to leave California for places with no state income tax as Texas and Nevada. Unfortunately, it’s a lot harder to leave the United States and such tyrants as Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner, who also crafted the massive new tax increases.

But we’re going to see more people flee California and even the United States to freedom.

By John Seiler

California Republicans seeking to get back in the game should look to Michigan. The big issue there now is advancing a right-to-work law. Given Michigan’s heavy union representation, especially by the powerful UAW, the issue would seem to be a non-starter. Yet it’s advancing:

“Unions lost big in Michigan in November when voters rejected Proposal 2, Big Labor’s plan to canonize collective bargaining in the state constitution. Now they are facing a backlash with the happy possibility that Michigan could become the 24th right-to-work state.”

Things actually should be more promising in California. In Michigan, the UAW, Teamsters and other unions primarily operate in the private sector. Although they have made inroads in the public sector; and the Michigan Education Association, like the California Teachers Association part of the ultra-powerful National Education Association, has a lot of clout in the Great Lake State.

Private-sector union members actually make things, such as cars and steel. And there’s a voluntary element. If you don’t like the UAW, you don’t have to buy a Ford, Chrysler or GM car. By contrast, with the government unions, which dominate in California, you have no choice except to move. As long as you live in California, you’re their taxpayer/slave.

Just last month, California unions defeated Proposition 32, which would have limited the unions’ ability to lift donations directly from member paychecks. The campaign successfully branded Prop. 32 as benefiting special interests that would have been exempt from the initiative.

Prop. 32 was too complicated — a typical failing of Republican attempts at reform.

Right-to-work

A better idea: Just go directly at the unions by enacting right-to-work laws. That way, union membership would be entirely voluntary. The tyrannical unions couldn’t force anyone to join. The campaign could be advanced as one of freedom for workers.

And the fact is, Californians are sick of the unions running — and ruining — the state. Did the unions just get a supermajority in both houses of the Legislature for their kept Democrats? Yes, but just wait till the Dems bust the budget in a couple of month — blowing all the $6 billion in higher taxes from Proposition 30, and then some.

And wait till the Prop. 30 tax increases — and the Obamacare tax increases, and the Fiscal Cliff tax increases — throw us into another recession.

In Michigan, Democrats once ruled the roost. The last time a Republican won the state’s electoral votes was George H.W. Bush, running on Reagan’s coattails, way back in 1988. Michiganders just voted 54 percent to 45 percent for President Obama, even though Mitt Romney grew up there and his father was governor in the 1960s. (California voted 60-37 for Obama.) Which is another indication of the ineptness of the Romney campaign.

But in Michigan, the governor now is Republican; the state Senate has a 26-12 Republican majority and the state House a 64-46 Republican majority.

Republicans usually come from business backgrounds and like to make “deals,” as they’re trying to do now with Obama over the “fiscal cliff.” But sometimes you have run right at your opponents. In 1981, Reagan jump started his domestic agenda by firing striking air traffic controllers.

Golden State Republicans should remember: No guts, no glory.

By John Seiler

California should change its name to Unionifornia. The public-employee unions won everything yesterday. They beat Proposition 32, which would have curbed their ability to siphon money directly from employees’ paychecks. They won Proposition 30, the $6 billion tax increase pushed by their kept governor, Jerry Brown.

They even defeated Proposition 38, the rival tax-increase initiative by lawyer Molly Munger, which would have plunked the added tax money directly into schools. By contrast, Prop. 30 has no real constraints, so the money can be siphoned off to union pensions.

The unions also re-elected Dianne Feinstein to the U.S. Senate. And their candidate for president, Barack Obama, won not only California, but the national election.

The problem for the ultra-powerful unions now is that the state and national economies are headed for breakdowns. Socialism never has worked.

For California, the millionaires hit with the new tax will start leaving. Brown, in the last days of the campaign, cited a study by two Stanford “poverty” professors (who themselves make huge salaries). We debunked the study here on CalWatchDog.com. But few California voters read CalWatchDog.com, only the smart ones.

By leaving, millionaires immediately avoid paying the state’s tops-in-the-nation state income tax of 13.3 percent. If they move to Nevada, Texas, Washington or other states with no income tax, they pay no state income tax at all.

But there’s more. Even if the millionaires stay, Prop. 30 grabs another $5 billion from them. That’s money they won’t have to invest in business and jobs creation. So the tax will hit all of us. Maybe a millionaire won’t buy the Rolls Royce he’s been ogling. But that means the minimum-wage mechanic at the Rolls dealership will be laid off and start collecting welfare.

The income tax increase also is retroactive for 2012. That means it will cost millionaires $5 billion now, and $5 billion in 2013. The giant sucking sound you hear is the California economy imploding.

Prop. 30 also increases sales taxes $1 billion. Meaning you and I will pay it. And it will kill more businesses and jobs — $1 billion worth.

More taxes

And Prop. 30 wasn’t the only tax increase to pass. Proposition 39 also passed, raising taxes $1 billion on out-of-state businesses that had created jobs here, but now might leave. It’s hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer’s initiative to funnel tax money into his favored investments. Expect other rich people to sponsor initiatives in 2014 that will do something similar: grab tax money to pad their own portfolios.

Brown and the unions don’t realize it, but they won’t get the money they want. The state’s anti-business climate is so penalizing, and made so much worse by the passage of Prop. 30 and Prop. 39, that tax revenue will decline faster than those initiatives can bring it in.

With Obama’s re-election, the national economy will start nosediving (not that Romney would have done any better). Another $166 billion in tax increases will hit the middle class on Jan. 1 when the payroll tax cut expires. Neither Republicans nor Democrats wants to keep the tax cut. That will hit middle-class American families with $1,000 in higher taxes in 2013.

We’re overdue for a recession anyway. They hit every four to six years. The last one hit in 2007. Add six to that and you get 2013.

The recession will bring more municipal bankruptcies throughout Unionifornia. The pension systems will keep teetering into insolvency. Unemployment will rise, and welfare rolls along with that, increasing the strains on the state budget.

The unions now own Unionifornia. And along with Brown and Obama, they’re going to have to take the blame for the crash.

When the crash happens, the time for reform will have arrived. In 2014, the reform movement should put on the ballot something like Proposition 75, the 2005 initiative that simply banned unions from directly extracting dues for politics from members’ paychecks. It got 47 percent of the vote even during the time of the booming economy (due to the phony real-estate boom that soon turned into a bust).

In 2012, Prop. 32 was much more complicated, including corporations in the paycheck protection, and got just 44 percent. Reformers need to make the 2014 decision simple: The ripped-off citizens vs. the ultra-powerful government-worker unions. People love a story about David (us) vs. Goliath (unions).

In two years, Unionifornia’s economy will be faltering badly, and voters will be in the mood for real reform. The time to plan is now.

By John Seiler

It’s too early to call the major state initiatives. Looks like it’ll be a long night. According to the Secretary of State’s Web site, just 19.1 percent of the vote has been counted as of 10:06 pm.

So far:

Prop. 30, Gov. Brown’s tax increases: Yes 48, No 52.

Prop. 31: Budget reform that gives would take money from suburbs for failing cities: Yes 42, No 48.

Prop. 32: Reining in the immense power of the government-employee unions by limiting their ability to lift contributions from workers: Yes 48, No 52.

Prop. 33: Slightly de-regulates immensely over-regulated auto insurance industry: Yes 48, No 52.

Prop. 34: Repeal death penalty: Yes 42 No 57.

Prop. 35: Human trafficking: Yes 83, No 17.

Prop. 36: Modify three strikes: Yes 68, No 32.

Prop. 37: GMO food labeling: Yes 43, No 57.

Prop. 38: $10 billion tax increase for schools: Yes 25, No 75.

Prop. 39: $1 billion tax on out of state businesses to kill jobs in California and funnel money to the investments of initiative sponsor Thomas Steyer: Yes 59, No 41. Way to go, comatose voters.

Prop. 40: Irrelevant. Sponsors repudiated it.

It’s too early to call the close ones, especially Prop. 30, because L.A. County isn’t included in the early tallies. They’re inefficient on this as on everything else.

More as the tally unfolds.

By Katy Grimes

Anyone who still has the hope of reforming California knows that it must begin with the political system. Far too many politicians in California are so heavily influenced by big money that constituents seem to be nothing more than an afterthought and a group to pander to for political advertisements.

For many years politicians have sought political contributions from corporations and unions, then voted the way those special interests ordered.

And, unfortunately, too many politically ambitious Republicans have gone along with the big-government party plan instead of thwarting the political dominance from unions and big corporations.

The only way to begin real reform in the Golden State is to neuter the money influences. Proposition 32, the “Paycheck Protection” ballot initiative, could begin the reform process.

Big bucks spending

Prop. 32 would end the questionable practice of the automatic deduction of funds from employee paychecks for political purposes; would end union and corporate contributions to political candidates; and would end government contractor contributions to elected officials. The prohibition applies to labor unions and corporations, as well as to government contractors.

In only the last 10 years, the California Teachers Association, the Service Employees International Union, and the California State Employee Association, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and political contributions, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission. Prominent members of the FPPC’s “Billion Dollar Club,” the CTA, a public employee union, spent $211.9 million, and the SEIU spent $107.5 million.

Between 2000 and 2010, the CSEA spent $31.8 million and the California Correctional Police Officers Association spent $32.4 million. Both are public employee unions.

From the private sector, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spending came in at $104.9 million between 2000 and 2010, the California Hospital Association spent $43.2 million, and the California Chamber of Commerce spent $39 million.

Utilities spent a great deal of ratepayer money as well: PG&E spent $69.3 million, AT&T $59.6 million and Southern California Edison $43.4 million.

The Morongo Band of Mission Indians spent $83.6 million, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians spent $69.3 million, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians spent $49 million. There were three additional bands of American Indians that spent a combined $77 million.

The California Realtors Association spent $33.3 million. Even the trial lawyers association spent $21.3 million between 2000 and 2010.

Local political spending

The shocking spending increase in local political races should prove that the big political spenders think that local races matter even more than local voters do.

In 2010, a friend of mine ran for the Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Directors. She was eminently qualified for the position. What should have been a local grassroots campaign turned into a dogged political battle when the AFL-CIO gave her opponent $30,000. She lost to union power.

I recently reported on the three Charter City initiatives on the November ballot. Escondido, Costa Mesa, and Grover Beach, currently general law cities under the California Constitution, are asking voters to allow the important change to charter cities.

Currently, California’s 121 charter cities have the authority to determine their own policies concerning their municipal affairs. Some cities have used the charter more wisely than others. The three cities vying for charter approval plan to use the new charters to circumvent overbearing state mandates requiring that they pay prevailing union wages on public projects.

But the labor and public employee unions aren’t going to allow this to become law without a fight.

In the Costa Mesa charter city battle, the “Taxpayers for Open and Accountable Government,” a group largely funded by the Orange County Employees Association, already has spent $360,000 to defeat the measure. Kevin Dayton, with Labor Issue Solutions, broke the contribution down:

* $274,634 from the Orange County Employees Association;

* $20,000 from the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association;

* $10,000 from the California Federation of Teachers;

* $5,000 from the Orange County Labor Federation AFL-CIO;

* $5,000 from the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals.

Dayton reported that $110,000 has been collected by “Committee for Costa Mesa’s Future,” which is sponsored by labor unions. In fact, Dayton found that all of the $110,000 came from the California Construction Industry Labor-Management Cooperation Committee.

And $8,229.30 has been spent by “Costa Mesans 4 Responsible Government” against Costa Mesa’s Measure V. This big labor organization has collected a total of $39,439.67, according to Dayton. “Besides opposing Measure V, this group is trying to get a slate of three pro-union, anti-charter candidates elected to replace three fiscally responsible, pro-charter incumbent city council members,” Dayton reported.

Prop. 32’s lofty goal

Should Prop. 32 pass, the current pay-to-play, “money-in, favors out” system will largely end, and unions will be neutered monetarily. Employees should be able to decide where their vote and political contributions go, instead of by a union boss or board of directors.

The fight may not be a new one. But it’s clear that unions have outlived their usefulness. Today unions are only political money laundering machines.

By John Seiler

The latest report shows California’s ultra-powerful government-worker unions surpassing $60 million in donations to stop Proposition 32, which would curb their clout. They obviously have shifted their focus from Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s $8.5 billion tax increase, to focus on Prop. 32.

Sure, they would like to get that money to fund their lucrative pay, perks and pensions. But more important is keeping their power. Prop. 30 looks like a loser anyway. That will mean budget cuts, mostly to new union members. But power is the real game, and keeping it must be maintained at all costs.

But the unions’ power already peaked in 2010 when they got Brown elected. Eventually, probably in 2014, they will gain two-thirds’ Democratic control of both houses of the California Legislature. The unions then could impose tax increases without finagling any Republican support.

But California at this point is taxed-out. Even if tax rates are raised, the tax revenues won’t follow. More businesses and jobs will just leave the state. Because there’s no more money, that means the next recession, when it hits, will slam state budgets again, forcing cuts in the state and local government work forces.

Recession

I suspect that the next recession will hit in 2013, regardless of who wins the presidency. Recessions and depressions strike every four to six years. The last one started in 2007, five years ago. So we’re about due.

The “fiscal cliff” is about to hit on Jan. 1, with taxes going up almost no matter what, including on the middle class. So a lot of economic activity is taking place this year, in 2012, in the lower tax climate, providing a modest boost just before the election (that’s a coincidence!). But that favorable tax climate expires in 2013.

The Federal Reserve Board also is going to have to start increasing interest rates, if not in 2013, then in 2014. You can’t keep interest rates forever at close to 0 percent. A jump in interest rates will slam the housing market, sparking another recession.

The public sector in America, and especially in California, has grown rapidly for 80 years, since the New Deal. But America now faces leaner competition from China, Brazil, India, etc.

The productive, private part of the U.S. economy no longer can sustain the parasitic, government part at such high levels.

The unions likely will win by defeating Prop. 32 on election day, but they will lose in the end because uninhibited power eventually is brought down.

By John Seiler

Say what you will about California’s ultra-powerful government-worker unions, they know how to protect their own interests. They have backed Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s $8.5 billion tax increase, because they would get the loot.

But now they’re pivoting their support largely behind Proposition 32, which would ban them from grabbing union dues directly from government workers’ paycheck if the money is used for political action. Tax increases come and go, and budget reductions can be lived with; but the unions’ ultimate power must be maintained at any cost.

It’s likely both these propositions will lose. So the unions also are cutting their losses on Prop. 30, but need to bury Prop. 32 as deeply as they can. They already defeated the similar Proposition 75  back in 2005; and Proposition 226 in 1998. They want the message to go out: go up against Big Unions and you lose.

The Times reported:

“Labor unions are unloading tens of millions of dollars against a ballot measure that could limit their political clout in California, but the spending could come at a cost for one of their biggest allies: Gov. Jerry Brown.

“The unions are pooling their money to fight Proposition 32, which would eliminate their primary political fundraising tool — paycheck deductions — at the same time Brown is counting on their support for his tax-hike initiative also on the ballot next month.

“Polls show support for his measure ebbing as election day nears. But although Brown has signed labor-backed legislation and pushed high-speed rail construction that would create union jobs, there’s only so much money to go around.”

So, tough luck, Jerry. He’s fond using Latin phrases to display his sense of superiority over us hoi polloi. After all, he went to parochial schools, not those crummy government schools he presides over.

So here’s one for him: Boni pastoris est tondere pecus non deglubere. 

Translation: It’s a good shepherd who shears his sheep [taxpayers] instead of flaying them.

Here’s another from his background as a seminarian: Nolite confidere in principibus.

Translation: Put not your faith in princes (Psalm 146:2).